Was BR involved? #2

[icedtea4me]

Also, in one of PR interviews she says "I hear my scream, then I hear John's scream when he came up from the basement... now this may have no significance, but why in the heck didnt TH say something when she said that? Did JR scream when he brought her up later that day, (cant remember)Or was it that morning before the 911 call was made that they found her? Like I said she may have just gotten mixed up during the interview, but she should have been questioned about it. Is it possible that it was PR and BR or just one?.. lets think about this..., it was either P or B, JR had no idea what had happened, he woke to get ready for the trip(maybe earlier than 5:30) PR had it all planned out already, she screamed for JR, he came running she showed him the note, he runs around looking for her and finds her, PR calls 911, etc. Maybe JR had no idea what happened to her until the 11:00 am comment, maybe he knew the whole time. The only thing that connects him with the crime scene evidence are the fibers from his shirt, whereas P and BR have DNA and FP on pieces of the crime scene. If JR figured it out who was actually responsible he covers for him, her. Honestly though I couldnt imagine him sleeping while all of that was going on. just a theory here

From the June 1998 interview:

0167
1 arms; they were tied up behind her head.
2 LOU SMIT: Were they tied tight?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, very tight.
4 LOU SMIT: They were very tight?
5 JOHN RAMSEY: I noticed a spot in her coat,
6 below the surface.
7 LOU SMIT: How do you know they were tied
8 tight?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Because they were -- you know,
10 her skin was swollen around. And they were not
11 easy to get off. I tried to untie them quickly and
12 I just picked her up carried her upstairs. I was
13 screaming. In fact, I couldn't even scream.

 

[questfortrue]

From the June 1998 interview:

0167
1 arms; they were tied up behind her head.
2 LOU SMIT: Were they tied tight?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, very tight.
4 LOU SMIT: They were very tight?
5 JOHN RAMSEY: I noticed a spot in her coat,
6 below the surface.
7 LOU SMIT: How do you know they were tied
8 tight?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Because they were -- you know,
10 her skin was swollen around. And they were not
11 easy to get off. I tried to untie them quickly and
12 I just picked her up carried her upstairs. I was
13 screaming. In fact, I couldn't even scream.

This is a good example of how JR accomplished drawing people into his scenario. (LS bought it. As did JD, great criminal profiler.) It’s just difficult to make sense of either of their many statements during interviews. He is screaming. He couldn’t even scream. She screams, then she hears JR scream. Or, she was warm she was wrapped in a blanket. (Nope, she had died and was cold to the touch.)

I don’t know about anyone else here, but I read these and I want to scream at the attempts of contrived emotional responses. At this point in Scene 1/Act 1 their huge fear of being found out regards their complicity in JB’s death trumped any true parental expression of horror. JMHO
_____________
Character Verbal from Usual Suspects: The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. And like that... he is gone.

 

[DeeDee249]

Ok go easy, 1st time poster here. A sexual assault never physically consummated, ongoing possible digital molestation? Cannot see a sexual predator with such restraint, no such restraint was used in JBs death.

Welcome. Please don't hesitate to post. Everyone was a Newbie at one point.
Yes, it had been mentioned by people involved with the case that a true pedophile, especially one who would kill his victim, would not be so "gentle". There would most definitely have been penile penetration and she would have had more vaginal injuries. Her killer would not have wrapped her in her own blanket "to keep her warm, as JR claimed". And probably not bothered to redress her, pull up her pants, and hide the body either. As past child rapist/killers have taught us, the body is either displayed for the most shock value or discarded. NOT left in the home that she was supposed to be "kidnapped" from.

 

[Chrishope]

Concerning the flashlight -

If it had been brought in by an actual intruder, then there should have been a second fl in the kitchen drawer where it was normally kept. There is only one fl, so it's most likely the R's fl.

Had there really been an intruder, using the R's fl, he would of course have wiped his own prints (if he was going to leave the fl behind) but not the batteries.

I'm not sure the batteries were wiped or not - can't recall now. There was no reason for a Ramsey to wipe the batteries as any of the R's (or the housekeeper's) prints on the batteries would not be at all suspicious. Likewise R (or LHP) prints on the outside wouldn't be the least bit suspicious. So, it probably wasn't wiped for prints, it was wiped to remove other forensic evidence.

 

[Chrishope]

Having read all the interviews several times, I never really considered them to be interrogations. I read somewhere that ST said he really didn't want to confront the Ramsey's with inconsistencies, possibly because he figured they would just end the interview and leave. Instead his game plan was to let them spew their lies so as to have them on record. At one point Thomas felt he had Patsy close to breaking but someone called for a break in the proceedings and Patsy regained herself.

I guess it's easy to say now that the interviews were soft, but it's also pretty obvious that the Ramsey's attorneys would never have let them sit around for a real interrogation.

IMO the mistake was made on the 26th when the Rs were moved out of the residence. They certainly should have been transported to HQ for questioning right then and there. If they had been separated and interviewed on that day I don't believe they would ever have left the station and would probably still be behind bars today. Instead they were given four months to prepare themselves and acquire the confidence of being backed by one of the most powerful legal firms in the country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The police certainly should have taken them "downtown" but the Rs were under no obligation to answer any questions and imo they would not have answered w/o their lawyers present. Police tactics work best on stupid people, who don't understand their rights and don't have a lawyer. I suspect that if they'd been hauled downtown they'd have refused to speak w/o their lawyers and then when the lawyers showed up, they'd continue to refuse, on advice form their lawyers. They'd have been released.

 

[Chrishope]

BR didn't kill her. Neither JR nor PR would have gone to prison for life (or possibly been executed) for a murder they didn't commit.

 

[midwest mama]

From the June 1998 interview:

0167
1 arms; they were tied up behind her head.
2 LOU SMIT: Were they tied tight?
3 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, very tight.
4 LOU SMIT: They were very tight?
5 JOHN RAMSEY: I noticed a spot in her coat,
6 below the surface.
7 LOU SMIT: How do you know they were tied
8 tight?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Because they were -- you know,
10 her skin was swollen around. And they were not
11 easy to get off. I tried to untie them quickly and
12 I just picked her up carried her upstairs. I was
13 screaming. In fact, I couldn't even scream.

BBM

What is this line all about??? Coat? The only other reference JR ever made to a coat was when he said he might have taken off JB's shoes or coat after he carried her upstairs to her room upon returning home before he left the room and Patsy took over getting JB readied for bed.

 

[midwest mama]

Concerning the flashlight -

If it had been brought in by an actual intruder, then there should have been a second fl in the kitchen drawer where it was normally kept. There is only one fl, so it's most likely the R's fl.

Had there really been an intruder, using the R's fl, he would of course have wiped his own prints (if he was going to leave the fl behind) but not the batteries.

I'm not sure the batteries were wiped or not - can't recall now. There was no reason for a Ramsey to wipe the batteries as any of the R's (or the housekeeper's) prints on the batteries would not be at all suspicious. Likewise R (or LHP) prints on the outside wouldn't be the least bit suspicious. So, it probably wasn't wiped for prints, it was wiped to remove other forensic evidence.

Makes sense. (BTW, glad you're back posting, CH). The only reason the flashlight would have been wiped, if not to remove forensic evidence, is to remove prints of someone who would not have been known to normally have an occasion to use the flashlight.

 

[icedtea4me]

BBM

What is this line all about??? Coat? The only other reference JR ever made to a coat was when he said he might have taken off JB's shoes or coat after he carried her upstairs to her room upon returning home before he left the room and Patsy took over getting JB readied for bed.

IMHO, based on the context, this is most likely a transcription error. Since they're talking about how her hands were tied, my guess is that John said 'her cord' or 'the cord', not 'her coat'. Both words begin with the /k/ sound, have the long /o/ sound, and end with a lingua-alveolar plosive sound, but the /d/ is voiced and the /t/ isn't. (I don't think it would be 'throat', because I can't see the /th/ being mistaken for a /k/.)

 

[Teresa]

The police certainly should have taken them "downtown" but the Rs were under no obligation to answer any questions and imo they would not have answered w/o their lawyers present. Police tactics work best on stupid people, who don't understand their rights and don't have a lawyer. I suspect that if they'd been hauled downtown they'd have refused to speak w/o their lawyers and then when the lawyers showed up, they'd continue to refuse, on advice form their lawyers. They'd have been released.

We will never know for sure because nobody tried. Smart people make stupid mistakes all the time.

 

[Teresa]

Makes sense. (BTW, glad you're back posting, CH). The only reason the flashlight would have been wiped, if not to remove forensic evidence, is to remove prints of someone who would not have been known to normally have an occasion to use the flashlight.

OR to make it look like an intruder had used it. A Ramsey wouldn't need to wipe it but a pretend intruder would.

 

[Chrishope]

Makes sense. (BTW, glad you're back posting, CH). The only reason the flashlight would have been wiped, if not to remove forensic evidence, is to remove prints of someone who would not have been known to normally have an occasion to use the flashlight.

Nice to hear from you MWM. I won't be around long. I just hadn't been here in quite a while so thought I'd see what's going on. Rehashing the same old stuff, over, and over........

You're right, if it was someone who wouldn't normally handle the light then he'd have to wipe it, or as Teresa points out below, someone wanting to make it look like an intruder.

For me the bottom line on BDI is this - Neither of the adult Rs are going to go to prison for life for a murder they didn't commit, to "save" a boy who can't be prosecuted.

If Burke hit her in the head it's hard to believe the adult's response was "Let's garrote her then cook up a phoney kidnapping". They'd pass it off as an accident or as a childhood spat that got out of hand. They'd know with one phone call where they stood legally - BR couldn't be prosecuted. And they'd have made that call in the wee hours of the night.

That means if BDI, BR applied the garrotte too. If BR applied the garrotte it would have been impossible to pass off her death as an accident. But there is still no reason for PR/JR to keep marching themselves towards the gallows for a murder they didn't do to "save" boy who was in no legal trouble. One needs to be devoid of common sense to believe in BDI.

 

[UKGuy]

Nice to hear from you MWM. I won't be around long. I just hadn't been here in quite a while so thought I'd see what's going on. Rehashing the same old stuff, over, and over........

You're right, if it was someone who wouldn't normally handle the light then he'd have to wipe it, or as Teresa points out below, someone wanting to make it look like an intruder.

For me the bottom line on BDI is this - Neither of the adult Rs are going to go to prison for life for a murder they didn't commit, to "save" a boy who can't be prosecuted.

If Burke hit her in the head it's hard to believe the adult's response was "Let's garrote her then cook up a phoney kidnapping". They'd pass it off as an accident or as a childhood spat that got out of hand. They'd know with one phone call where they stood legally - BR couldn't be prosecuted. And they'd have made that call in the wee hours of the night.

That means if BDI, BR applied the garrotte too. If BR applied the garrotte it would have been impossible to pass off her death as an accident. But there is still no reason for PR/JR to keep marching themselves towards the gallows for a murder they didn't do to "save" boy who was in no legal trouble. One needs to be devoid of common sense to believe in BDI.

Chrishope,

I won't be around long.

And that will be a time lapse I cannot reclaim, which is entirely unfair.

Of course the BDI outlined above is Chrishope's BDI. Yet the BDI events may never ever have taken place as outlined, BR may have been present when JonBenet was sexually assaulted, JR or PR may have been present when JonBenet was whacked on the head, and PR or JR may have been present when JonBenet was penetrated with the paintbrush. Chrishope cannot tell us which of these scenarios actually played out. Why not, because he is ignorant, as Socrates might assert he lacks Knowledge?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

BBM

What is this line all about??? Coat? The only other reference JR ever made to a coat was when he said he might have taken off JB's shoes or coat after he carried her upstairs to her room upon returning home before he left the room and Patsy took over getting JB readied for bed.

"Coat" is a transcription error. He means "Cord" and we all KNOW he us lying about her swollen hands because, well, they were NOT swollen.

 

[midwest mama]

"Coat" is a transcription error. He means "Cord" and we all KNOW he us lying about her swollen hands because, well, they were NOT swollen.

DeeDee249...Can you help with medical info regarding JB'S wrists being in the binding? You commented before that since her arms were in rigor up over her head and the wrists weren't close together we can assume her hands weren't "tied together". Could we think, then, that her hands might have been bound, but with something between them as rigor mortis set in. Such as, if she were killed, then temporarily suspended from something like those round duct pipes on the basement ceiling, then the slip knot on one side of the wrist binding loosened to allow her to be taken down and wrapped into the blanket, etc.. Would there have been swelling after death? If the wrist binding was put on after death and she was suspended, would there be blanch marks? I tend to wonder if the wrist ligature was already freed from her one wrist when JR "found" her in the WC.

 

[midwest mama]

Nice to hear from you MWM. I won't be around long. I just hadn't been here in quite a while so thought I'd see what's going on. Rehashing the same old stuff, over, and over........

You're right, if it was someone who wouldn't normally handle the light then he'd have to wipe it, or as Teresa points out below, someone wanting to make it look like an intruder.

For me the bottom line on BDI is this - Neither of the adult Rs are going to go to prison for life for a murder they didn't commit, to "save" a boy who can't be prosecuted.

If Burke hit her in the head it's hard to believe the adult's response was "Let's garrote her then cook up a phoney kidnapping". They'd pass it off as an accident or as a childhood spat that got out of hand. They'd know with one phone call where they stood legally - BR couldn't be prosecuted. And they'd have made that call in the wee hours of the night.

That means if BDI, BR applied the garrotte too. If BR applied the garrotte it would have been impossible to pass off her death as an accident. But there is still no reason for PR/JR to keep marching themselves towards the gallows for a murder they didn't do to "save" boy who was in no legal trouble. One needs to be devoid of common sense to believe in BDI.

I agree that the R's would not put themselves in jeopardy of prison if they had nothing to do with JB'S death and had discovered BR (and/or another youth such as DS) had killed her. Both of the Rs were savvy enough to know to call their atty ASAP if they had known it was not either of them and there had been no intruder. The lawyer would have had every avenue he needed to insure JB'S "tragic accident" was properly disguised and diminished from the limelight, especially with JR being in the middle of the big deal with Lockheed.

Imagine how different this whole thing might have played out if it WAS BR and the Rs DID make those wee hour phone calls and then simply went to work according to their attys advice. After some weeks of minimal managed media attention, they could have faded back into a high society lifestyle as they grieved the loss of JB and worked on helping their son towards a heathy, and repentive adult life.
MHO,only.

 

[ozazure]

A year or more ago I first wrote here about my "lightbulb" moment of what a parent will do to obscure a child's bizarre behaviour, because of a family I knew. There is lots of narcissism, concern for outwards appearances and a talent for denial. Time marches on and I am only more sure that the non-threat of BR being criminally prosecuted had no bearing on the logic of participating in a cover-up. A cover-up would be to protect the family's dynamic of denying problems, presenting an acceptable face to the world and creating a lie they can live in for themselves. Since then I have seen in the situation I know, lives put at risk because of those three factors, narcissism/attention, appearances and denial. It is not a situation that occurs overnight. By the time it happens they have recommitted to this path multiple times in a thousand small ways. There is a lot tied up in it.

You really cannot underestimate how much those elements are compulsively subconsciously prioritised over other impulses such as parental instinct, responsibility and empathy, even if they are often capable of being decent and showing those traits at times. I can understand if you haven't seen this kind of thing first hand the logic or feel of it seems implausible. I see it as plausible, I just don't know about other issues such as BR having the strength to inflict the injury she suffered to her skull for example. I really hope it wasn't BR, and I think the law is right in that he is too young to be truly culpable. I just continue to hope if it was him he got the help he deserved and should have had before, and is now a safe person to be around and is not suffering himself because both those kids may have been deeply betrayed by their parents in not preventing this.

 

[andreww]

You may be right, you may be wrong, but in the end I still feel the whole "Burke did it" theory to be implausible. Yes, he may have hit her over the head, but he certainly didn't carry her down to the basement, fashion the garrote, and strangle the life out of her. If he did hit her, a call to 911 might have saved her, but one or both of the parents made the decision to handle it differently.

So whether Burke had a part in it or not, the parents still would be the actual murderers IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

You may be right, you may be wrong, but in the end I still feel the whole "Burke did it" theory to be implausible. Yes, he may have hit her over the head, but he certainly didn't carry her down to the basement, fashion the garrote, and strangle the life out of her. If he did hit her, a call to 911 might have saved her, but one or both of the parents made the decision to handle it differently.

So whether Burke had a part in it or not, the parents still would be the actual murderers IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
Well you can have your cake and eat it. Since if its not BDI then its some combination of JDI or PDI. And if its BDI then one of the parents killed JonBenet after declining to diall 911!

The case is really BDI, since he is factored into the staging by the parents, i.e. not required if he is not involved!

.

 

[UKGuy]

A year or more ago I first wrote here about my "lightbulb" moment of what a parent will do to obscure a child's bizarre behaviour, because of a family I knew. There is lots of narcissism, concern for outwards appearances and a talent for denial. Time marches on and I am only more sure that the non-threat of BR being criminally prosecuted had no bearing on the logic of participating in a cover-up. A cover-up would be to protect the family's dynamic of denying problems, presenting an acceptable face to the world and creating a lie they can live in for themselves. Since then I have seen in the situation I know, lives put at risk because of those three factors, narcissism/attention, appearances and denial. It is not a situation that occurs overnight. By the time it happens they have recommitted to this path multiple times in a thousand small ways. There is a lot tied up in it.

You really cannot underestimate how much those elements are compulsively subconsciously prioritised over other impulses such as parental instinct, responsibility and empathy, even if they are often capable of being decent and showing those traits at times. I can understand if you haven't seen this kind of thing first hand the logic or feel of it seems implausible. I see it as plausible, I just don't know about other issues such as BR having the strength to inflict the injury she suffered to her skull for example. I really hope it wasn't BR, and I think the law is right in that he is too young to be truly culpable. I just continue to hope if it was him he got the help he deserved and should have had before, and is now a safe person to be around and is not suffering himself because both those kids may have been deeply betrayed by their parents in not preventing this.

ozazure,
I think you are correct. The R's went into reputation preserval mode, thinking that their millionaire status would smooth everything over, i.e. it was a bizarre kidnapping that went wrong, lets all get on with our lives.

They completely failed to factor in the media, and all of JonBenet's cutesy movie clips that were out to entertain the public to another side of the millionare family from Boulder, i.e. game over!

.